This is the profound question that is before the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe and the obligation to determine if a President and in the Mupasiri case under Case Number 34/21, has been vested exclusively in the Constitutional Court.
The purpose of s167(2)(d) of the Constitution as read with s167(3) is to permit a President to be removed for conduct and/or failure to fulfill a constitutional obligation.
The framers of the 2013 constitution inserted a mechanism in it that that can be used to displace an unfit magistrate.
The displacement can be done either by parliament or the CCZ.
Prominent Zimbabweans like Trevor Ncube who resigned from the Presidential Advisory Council have fingered a captured judiciary as one of the roadblock to an open, transparent, accountable and constitutional democratic Zimbabwe.
Having read the Mupasiri court submissions and President’s contemptuous opposition, it is evident that what George Mason eloborated at the epic Philadelphia constitutional conference that some mode of displacing an unfit President is rendered indispensable by the fallibility of those like President Mnangagwa who choose, as well as by the corruptibility of the person of the President.
President Mnangagwa has no discretion but to answer to the CJ Malaba-led apex court if allegations of serious wrongdoing are made against the President.
Unlike a monarchy, President Mnangagwa is constitutionally compelled to answer personally to the CCZ and so far he has grudgingly complied.
Alexander Hamilton in relation to the USA, explained that the President would have no resemblance to the British monarchy or a dictator for he stands to be impeached, tried, and upon conviction by the CCZ, would suffer the fate of a discredited magistrate whose relationship to the public office becomes untenable and automatically is severed.
An adverse finding by the CCZ results in the loss of political power and directly speaks to the nature of impeachment.
Mr. Brian Manyati, a trustee of the Friends of Shabanie and Mashava Mines Trust (FOSMM), said: “s167(2)(d) was specifically inserted in the constitution not to inflict punishment for a President’s past wrongdoing but rather to save Zimbabwe from misconduct that endangers the project to build a country in which no one is above justice and the rule of law.
in this instant case, the ultimate question the CCZ had to answer is whether leaving President Mnangagwa in our highest office imperils the Constitution or abdicate its duty by deferring the question to the people of Zimbabwe to decide in 2023.”
r
